Here at inversecondemnation.com, we were all set to call it a week and take a break from posting until Monday.
But SCOTUS had other ideas.
In this Order issued today, it agreed to review Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, a case and an issue we've been following closely.
The Questions Presented by the petition:
Hennepin County confiscated 93-year-old Geraldine Tyler’s former home as payment for approximately $15,000 in property taxes, penalties, interest, and costs. The County sold the home for $40,000, and, consistent with a Minnesota forfeiture statute, kept all proceeds, including the $25,000 that exceeded Tyler’s debt as a windfall for the public. In all states, municipalities may take real property and sell it to collect payment for property tax debts. Most states allow the government to keep only as much as it is owed; any surplus proceeds after collecting the debt belong to the former owner. But in Minnesota and a dozen other states, local governments take absolute title, extinguishing the owner’s equity in exchange only for cancelling a smaller tax debt, code enforcement fine, or debt to government agencies.The questions presented are:1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause?2. Whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt plus, interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment?
Disclosure: our law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, represents the Petitioner property owner, and our law firm colleague Christina Martin is the lead counsel. Consequently, we won't be putting up much analysis here. But of course we shall continue to follow along (or you may follow the Court's docket here).
This case is the third of our firm's which the Court has granted on property issues this Term (Sackett and Wilkins being the other two).
